What Happens When the Second Judgment Changes First Judgment ?
In Mullins v. Thomas,, the supreme court held that a second judgment which does not expressly state it vacates, modifies, amends, etc. a first judgment is a nullity and the first judgment is the final judgment. See Mullins v. Thomas, 136 Tex. 215, 150 S.W.2d 83 at 83-84 (1941).
In Check v. Mitchell and Westlake Hills v. State, the supreme court stated that the second judgment may be the final judgment if the judgment and circumstances indicate that the second judgment implicitly vacates, modifies, amends, etc. the first judgment. Check v. Mitchell, 758 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. 1971); City of Westlake Hills v. State, 466 S.W.2d 722, 726-27 (Tex. 1971).
In Azbill v. Dallas County, the Court held that "by signing a second judgment, a trial court does not automatically vacate the first judgment." Id.
The second Azbill judgment did not contain any language suggesting that the court intended to replace the first judgment; rather it showed the trial court intended the first judgment to remain in effect.
Thus, this Court found the second judgment to be a nullity. See Azbill v. Dallas County Child Protective Services Unit of the Texas Dep't. of Human and Regulatory Services, 860 S.W.2d 133, 138-39 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no writ)